Corporate Financial Accounting 15th Edition Warren Test Bank

Corporate Financial Accounting 15th
Edition Warren Test Bank

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://testbankdeal.com/download/corporate-financial-accounting-15th-edition-warre
n-test-bank/
Corporate Financial Accounting 15th Edition Warren Test Bank
Chapter 02 - Double-Entry Accounting

1. Accounts are records of increases and decreases in individual accounting equation elements.
a. True
b. False
ANSWER: True
POINTS: 1
DIFFICULTY: Easy
Bloom's: Remembering
QUESTION TYPE: True / False
HAS VARIABLES: False
LEARNING OBJECTIVES: FNMN.WAJO.19.02-01 - LO: 02-01
ACCREDITING STANDARDS: ACCT.ACBSP.APC.01 - Purpose
ACCT.ACBSP.APC.02 - GAAP
ACCT.AICPA.FN.03 - Measurement
BUSPROG: Analytic
DATE CREATED: 7/22/2017 5:26 PM
DATE MODIFIED: 10/16/2017 4:19 PM
2. A chart of accounts is a listing of accounts that make up the journal.

a. True
b. False
ANSWER: False
POINTS: 1
DIFFICULTY: Easy
ACCREDITING STANDARDS: ACCT.ACBSP.APC.01 - Purpose
ACCT.ACBSP.APC.02 - GAAP
BUSPROG: Analytic
3. The chart of accounts should be the same for each business.

a. True
b. False
ANSWER: False
POINTS: 1
DIFFICULTY: Moderate
ACCREDITING STANDARDS: ACCT.ACBSP.APC.02 - GAAP
ACCT.ACBSP.APC.03 - Business Forms
Copyright Cengage Learning. Powered by Cognero. Page 1
Visit TestBankDeal.com to get complete for all chapters

BUSPROG: Analytic
4. Accounts payable are accounts that you expect will be paid to you.
a. True
b. False
ANSWER: False
POINTS: 1
STATE STANDARDS: United States - OH - FN-Measurement
ACCT.ACBSP.APC.04 - Cash vs. Accrual
BUSPROG: Analytic
5. Consuming goods and services in the process of generating revenues results in expenses.
a. True
b. False
ANSWER: True
POINTS: 1
DIFFICULTY: Easy
STATE STANDARDS: United States - IN - APC-06-Recording Transactions
ACCT.ACBSP.APC.06 - Recording Transactions
BUSPROG: Analytic
6. Prepaid expenses are an example of an expense.

a. True
b. False
ANSWER: False
POINTS: 1
STATE STANDARDS: United States - IN - APC-04-Cash vs. Accrual
BUSPROG: Analytic
7. The Unearned Revenues account is an example of a liability.

a. True
b. False
ANSWER: True
POINTS: 1
STATE STANDARDS: United States - IN - APC-04-Cash vs. Accrual
BUSPROG: Analytic
8. The Dividends account is an expense.

a. True
b. False
ANSWER: False
POINTS: 1
STATE STANDARDS: United States - IN - APC-06-Recording Transactions
ACCT.ACBSP.APC.06 - Recording Transactions
BUSPROG: Analytic
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
and can even walk unmolested through the principal streets in
Dublin.”[174]
Shortly after, he wrote as follows to his brother Charles.
“A , August 8, 1752.
“D B ,—Some of our preachers here have
peremptorily affirmed, that you are not so strict as me; that
you neither practise, nor enforce, nor approve of, the rules of
the bands. I suppose, they mean those which condemn
needless self indulgence, and recommend the means of grace,
fasting in particular; which is well-nigh forgotten throughout
this nation. I think it would be of use, if you wrote without
delay, and explain yourself at large.
“They have, likewise, openly affirmed, that you agree with
Mr. Whitefield touching perseverance, at least, if not
predestination too. Is it not highly expedient, that you should
write explicitly and strongly on this head likewise?
“Perhaps the occasion of this latter affirmation was, that
both you and I have often granted an absolute, unconditional
election of some, together with a conditional election of all
men. I did incline to this scheme for many years; but of late I
have doubted it more and more: First, because all the texts
which I used to think supported it, I now think, prove either
more or less; either absolute reprobation and election, or
neither. Secondly, because I find this opinion serves all the ill
purposes of absolute predestination; particularly that of
supporting infallible perseverance. Talk with any that holds it,
and so you will find.
“On Friday and Saturday next is our little conference at
Limerick. We join in love.”[175]
No one reading Charles Wesley’s hymns will, for a moment, entertain
the accusation, that he sympathised with the Calvinian tenets of his
friend Whitefield; and yet, remembering, that he and the Countess of
Huntingdon were now living in terms of the most intimate friendship;
and, that he was frequently preaching and administering the sacrament in
her ladyship’s house, it is not surprising, that such a report should have
become current. As to the other point, that Charles Wesley did not
approve of and enforce some of the rules of the society, we incline to
think, that this was true; and that there was already an amount of shyness
between the brothers, which soon afterwards threatened to become
something serious.
The Limerick conference (the first in Ireland) was held on the 14th
and 15th days of August. Oddly enough, there are in existence two
manuscripts, written by preachers present at the conference, and
containing its minutes and appointments. One of them, in my own
possession, was given by an aunt of Philip Guier, to the Rev. Samuel
Wood, who published a copy of it in the Irish Methodist Magazine for
1807. The other manuscript is in the handwriting of Jacob Rowell, and is
now possessed by Mr. John Steele, of Chester. It is from Rowell’s
manuscript that the editor of the new edition of the minutes, published in
1862, printed the minutes of the Limerick conference contained in that
volume.
From these important documents we learn, that there was a general
decay of the societies in Ireland, partly occasioned by the teaching of
antinomian and Calvinian doctrines; partly by the want of discipline; and
partly by the misbehaviour of preachers. All the itinerants present (ten in
number) declared, that they did not believe in the doctrine of absolute
predestination; but three of them added: “We believe there are some
persons absolutely elected; but we believe, likewise, that Christ died for
all; that God willeth not the death of any man; and that thousands are
saved that are not absolutely elected. We believe, further, that those who
are thus elected cannot finally fall; but we believe other believers may
fall, and that those who were once justified may perish everlastingly.”
Let Wesley’s letter to his brother be read in the light of this extract
from the Limerick minutes, and the one will help to explain the other. We
have here an instance of Wesley tolerating a difference in doctrine
among his preachers, so long as fundamental truths were not impugned.
This might be wise or it might not; but the fact itself is a fact worth
noticing.
It was resolved, however, that, in future, no man should be received as
a fellow labourer unless he thoroughly agreed to both Methodist doctrine
and discipline; and that, if any preacher revolted from this agreement,
letters should be sent to all the societies, disowning him.
It was, also, decided, that if a man was not able to preach twice a day,
he should be only a local preacher; that, of the two, it was better to give
up the evening preaching in a place than the morning; that the
congregations must constantly kneel in prayer, and stand both in singing
and while the text was read, and be serious and silent while the service
lasted, and when coming and going away. Persons not having band
tickets were not to be permitted to be present at the public meeting of the
bands, for this would make the tickets cheap, and would discourage
those who had them. Preachers were to be allowed £8, at least, and if
possible £10 a year for clothing; and £10 a year were to be allowed for
the support of each preacher’s wife. The preachers were to preach
frequently and strongly on fasting; and were to practise it every Friday,
health permitting. Next to luxury, they were to avoid idleness, and were
to spend one hour every day in private prayer.
Six preachers were admitted, one of whom was Philip Guier,
concerning whom we must say a word.
It is well known, that a number of Palatines, driven from Germany,
had settled in the neighbourhood of Ballingran; and that, though they
were in the first instance a sober, well conducted, and moral people, they
had, through having no minister of their own, and no German worship,
degenerated into an irreligious, drunken, swearing community. Amidst
this general degeneracy, Philip Guier breasted the wave, and, like
Milton’s Abdiel, proved faithful among the faithless. He was the master
of the German school at Ballingran; and it was in his school, that Philip
Embury (subsequently the founder of Methodism in the United States,
now a young man thirty-two years of age), had been taught to read and
write. By means of Guier, also, the devoted Thomas Walsh, of the same
age as Embury, had been enlightened, and prepared to receive the truth
as it is in Jesus. Philip Guier was made the leader of the infant society at
Limerick, and now, in 1752, was appointed to act as a local preacher
among the Palatines. He still kept his school, but devoted his spare hours
to preaching. The people loved the man, and sent him, if not money, yet
flour, oatmeal, bacon, and potatoes, so that Philip, if not rich, was not in
want. It is a remarkable fact, that, after the lapse of a hundred years, the
name of Philip Guier is as fresh in Ballingran as it ever was; for there,
even papists as well as protestants are accustomed to salute the
Methodist minister as he jogs along on his circuit horse, and to say,
“There goes Philip Guier, who drove the devil out of Ballingran!”[176]
Under the date of May 7, 1778, Wesley writes: “Two months ago, good
Philip Guier fell asleep, one of the Palatines that came over and settled in
Ireland, between sixty and seventy years ago. He was a father both to
this” [Newmarket] “and the other German societies, loving and
cherishing them as his own children. He retained all his faculties to the
last, and after two days’ illness went to God.”
After the conference at Limerick, Wesley proceeded to Cork, where he
examined the society, and found about three hundred, who were striving
to have a conscience void of offence toward God and man. At Kinsale,
he preached in a large, deep hollow, capable of containing two or three
thousand people, the soldiers of the fort, with their swords, cutting him a
place to stand upon. At Waterford, Thomas Walsh preached in Irish, and
Wesley in English, the rabble cursing, shouting, and hallooing most
furiously.
At length, after spending twelve weeks in Ireland, during which there
were not two dry days together, Wesley set sail for England; and, on
October 14, arrived safe at Bristol. Three weeks later, he came to
London, and here he continued the remainder of the year, preparing
books for the “Christian Library,” on which he had already lost more
than £200.
During this interval, Whitefield wrote as follows to Charles Wesley,
showing that distrust was creeping in among them:—
“L , December 22, 1752.
“M F ,—I have read and pondered your kind
letter. The connection between you and your brother has been
so close and continued, and your attachment to him so
necessary to keep up his interest, that I would not willingly,
for the world, do or say anything that may separate such
friends. I cannot help thinking, that he is still jealous of me
and my proceedings; but, I thank God, I am quite easy about
it. I have seen an end of all perfection. God knows how I love
and honour you, and your brother, and how often I have
preferred your interest to my own. This I shall continue to do.
More might be said, were we face to face.
“Yours, etc.,
“G W .”[177]
It is far from pleasant to end the year with a note of discord; but we
shall unfortunately have to hear more of this in future years.
In concluding the chapter with the usual list of Wesley’s publications
during the current year, there must be noticed:—
1. The continuation of his “Christian Library.” Twelve volumes had
been given to the public already; seven more were issued in 1752,
containing extracts from the writings of Thomas Manton, Isaac
Ambrose, Jeremy Taylor, Ralph Cudworth, Nathaniel Culverwell, John
Owen, and others.
2. “Some Account of the Life and Death of Matthew Lee.” 12mo, 24
pages.
3. “Serious Thoughts concerning Godfathers and Godmothers.” 12mo,
four pages. The tract was written at Athlone in Ireland, but was hardly
worth publishing. Of course, Wesley approves of godfathers and
godmothers; but acknowledges that baptism is valid without them.
4. “Predestination calmly Considered.” 12mo, 83 pages. We have
already seen, that three of the preachers, present at the Irish conference,
expressed their belief, that some persons are absolutely elected, but that
thousands are saved who are not elected. It was also rumoured, that
Charles Wesley inclined to Whitefield’s predestinarian views. Under
such circumstances, Wesley’s “Predestination calmly Considered” was a
needed and opportune production. He writes (page 6): “There are some
who assert the decree of election, and not the decree of reprobation. They
assert, that God hath, by a positive, unconditional decree, chosen some to
life and salvation; but not that He hath, by any such decree, devoted the
rest of mankind to destruction. These are they to whom I would address
myself first.” This is one of Wesley’s most cogent and exhaustive
pamphlets, written in a most loving spirit, and yet utterly demolishing
the Calvinistic theory. He shows conclusively, that no man can
consistently hold the doctrine of election without holding the cognate
doctrine of reprobation,—a doctrine wholly opposed to the plainest
teachings of holy Scripture, dishonouring to God, overthrowing the
scriptural doctrines of a future judgment, and of rewards and
punishments, and “naturally leading to the chambers of death.” It is
difficult to conceive how any one can read Wesley’s treatise, and still
remain a Calvinist. None of his Methodistic friends tried to answer it; but
Dr. John Gill, the pastor of a Baptist church in Southwark, published, in
the same year, the two following pamphlets:—“The Doctrine of the
Saints’ Final Perseverance, asserted and vindicated. In answer to a late
pamphlet, called Serious Thoughts on that subject.” 8vo, 59 pages. And,
“The Doctrine of Predestination stated and set in the Scripture light; in
opposition to Mr. Wesley’s Predestination Calmly Considered. With a
reply to the exceptions of the said writer to the Doctrine of the
Perseverance of the Saints.” 8vo, 52 pages. In the latter production, Dr.
Gill says, that Wesley, in noticing his former one, had “contented himself
with low, mean, and impertinent exceptions, not attempting to answer
one argument, and yet having the assurance, in the public papers, to call
this miserable piece of his, chiefly written on another subject, ‘A full
answer to Dr. Gill’s pamphlet on Final Perseverance.’” This, on the part
of Dr. Gill, was the wincing whine of a defeated man. It was not worthy
of him. Dr. Gill was now fifty-five years of age, and a man of vast
learning and research. Before his twentieth year, he had read all the
Greek and Latin authors that had fallen in his way, and had so studied
Hebrew as to be able to read the Old Testament in the original with
pleasure. Besides other works, he was the author of “A Body of
Divinity,” in three quarto volumes; and of “An Exposition of the Old and
New Testament,” in nine volumes, folio. The university of Aberdeen had
conferred upon him the degree of a doctor of divinity, “on account of his
great knowledge of the Scriptures, of the oriental languages, and of
Jewish antiquities, of his learned defence of the Scriptures against deists
and infidels, and the reputation gained by his other works”; but, in terse,
powerful, conclusive argument, John Gill was not a match for John
Wesley. He was a man of excellent moral character; but he was an ultra
Calvinist. He was a man of unwearied diligence, of laborious research, of
vast learning; but his immense mass of valuable materials were
comparatively useless, for he had neither talent to digest, nor skill to
arrange them. We think it was Robert Hall who not inaptly described his
voluminous productions as “a continent of mud.” He died in 1771.
5. Another of Wesley’s publications in 1752 was, “A Second Letter to
the Author of ‘The Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists compared.’”
This was published in the month of January; and, at the same time, was
issued, “A Third Letter to the Author of the Enthusiasm of Methodists,”
etc. By Vincent Perronet, A.M.; price sixpence.”[178]
Lavington published the second part of his lampooning work in
1749;[179] and part third in 1751. Of Part II., Whitefield wrote, in a letter
to Lady Huntingdon, dated August 24, 1749:—“I have seen the bishop’s
second pamphlet, in which he serves the Methodists, as the Bishop of
Constance served John Huss, when he ordered painted devils to be put
round his head, before they burnt him. His preface to me is most virulent.
Everything I wrote, in my answer, is turned into the vilest ridicule. I
cannot see that it calls for any further answer from me. Mr. Wesley, I
think, had best attack him now, as he is largely concerned in this second
part.”[180]
Whitefield was not a match for an episcopal buffoon like Lavington;
and hence he hands him over to his trenchant friend Wesley. The preface,
of more than thirty pages, addressed to Whitefield, was full of banter;
and in Part II., following it, he is treated with the same coarse rudeness.
He and Wesley and the Methodist preachers in general are accused of
assuming “the ostentation of sanctified looks,” “fantastical oddities,”
“affectation of godly and Scripture phrases,” “and high pretensions to
inspiration.” “Their great swelling words of vanity, and proud boastings,
had been carried to a most immoderate and insufferable degree.” “They
were either innocent madmen, or infamous cheats.” As for Whitefield,
“no man ever so bedaubed himself with his own spittle. His first Account
of God’s Dealings with him was such a boyish, ludicrous, filthy, nasty,
and shameless relation of himself, as quite defiles paper, and is shocking
to decency and modesty. It is a perfect jakes of uncleanness.” Wesley had
“so fanaticised his own followers, and given them so many strong doses
of the enthusiastic tincture, as to turn their brains and deprive them of
their senses.” “The mountebank’s infallible prescriptions must be
swallowed, whatever be the consequence, though they die for it.” The
Methodists are charged with “the black art of calumny, with excessive
pride and vanity, with scepticisms and disbeliefs of God and Christ, with
disorderly practices, and inveterate broils among themselves, and with a
coolness for good works, and an uncommon warmth for some that are
very bad.” “In their several Answers and Defences, a strain of jesuitical
sophistry, artifice and craft, evasion, reserve, equivocation, and
prevarication, is of constant use.”
Lavington’s Part III., a volume in itself, is addressed “to the Reverend
Mr. Wesley”; who is made the almost exclusive object of its virulent
attack. He is told, that he is “an arrant joker, a perfect droll.” “Go on,”
says the ribald bishop, “and build chapels. One may be dedicated to the
god Proteus, famous for being a juggling wonder-monger, and turning
himself into all shapes; another to the god called Catius, because he
made men sly and cunning as cats. The people with whom you have to
do, you know, will adore you; for the same reason that the Egyptians did
their bull Apis; because renowned for miracles, and every hour changing
its colour.” He adds: “your Letter to the author of Enthusiasm is a
medley of chicanery, sophistry, prevarication, evasion, pertness,
conceitedness, scurrility, sauciness, and effrontery. Paper and time
should not be wasted on such stuff.” And this was all the answer his
lordship furnished.
We are afraid to make our pages, what Lavington has made his book,
“a perfect jakes of uncleanness,” by further quotations. Suffice it to say,
that the whole of this scurrility was anonymous.
No wonder that Wesley, in his answer, speaks of his calumniator as
“one that turns the most serious, the most awful, the most venerable
things into mere farce, and matter of low buffoonery”; one who treats
sacred topics with the “spirit of a merry-andrew.” He convicts him of the
most flagrant falsehood, and says, “I charge you with gross, wilful
prevarication, from the beginning of your book to the end”; and firmly,
but respectfully, sustains the charge. He writes:—
“I have now considered all the arguments you have brought
to prove, that the Methodists are carrying on the work of
popery. And I am persuaded, every candid man, who rightly
weighs what has been said, with any degree of attention, will
clearly see, not only, that no one of those arguments is of any
real force at all, but that you do not believe them yourself;
you do not believe the conclusion which you pretend to
prove; only you keep close to your laudable resolution of
throwing as much dirt as possible.”
“These things being so, what must all unprejudiced men

think of you and your performance? You have advanced a
charge, not against one or two persons only, but
indiscriminately against a whole body of people of his
majesty’s subjects, Englishmen, Protestants, members, I
suppose, of your own church; a charge containing abundance
of articles, and most of them of the highest and blackest
nature. You have prosecuted this with unparalleled bitterness
of spirit, and acrimony of language; using sometimes the most
coarse, rude, scurrilous terms; sometimes the keenest
sarcasms you could devise. The point you have steadily
pursued, in thus prosecuting this charge, is, first, to expose the
whole people to the hatred and scorn of all mankind; and
next, to stir up the civil powers against them. And when this
charge comes to be fairly weighed, there is not a single article
of it true! Most of the passages you have cited, you have
palpably maimed, corrupted, and strained to a sense never
thought of by the writer; they prove nothing less than the
points in question; and many of them are flat against you, and
overthrow the very point they are brought to support. Is not
this the most shocking violation of the Christian rule, ‘Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’; the most open affront to
all justice, and even common humanity; the most glaring
insult upon the common sense and reason of mankind, which
has lately appeared in the world?”
“You regard neither mercy, justice, nor truth. To vilify and

blacken is your one point. I pray God it may not be laid to
your charge! May He show you mercy, though you show
none!
“I am, sir,
“Your friend and well wisher,
“J W .”
What was the result? In the month of March, or April,[181] Lavington

published a tract, with the title, “The Bishop of Exeter’s Answer to Mr.
Wesley’s late Letter to his Lordship.” 8vo, 15 pages; in which he feebly
struggles to get out of a flagrant falsehood, of which Wesley had
convicted him; and, true to his old vituperative style of writing,
concludes thus:—
“The remainder of your epistle, mere rant and declamation,
shall give me no trouble. Having cleared up a matter of fact,
which may be thought necessary for my own justification, I
find myself under no obligation or disposition, to enter into
matters of dispute, wherein our opinions would widely differ.
I am too sensible of your way of answering, your temper, and
of what spirit you are of, to think of any further
correspondence: and if you expect, that I should let myself
down to a level with you, you will find yourself mistaken. I
pray God to give you a good will, and a right judgment in all
things;
“And am, sir,
“Your obedient, humble servant,
“G. E .”
This was pitiful poltroonery, in perfect character with a cowardly

calumniator, who had poured forth the most unfounded scandals, without
daring to show his face or to sign his name. Wesley briefly replied, in a
letter dated “Newcastle upon Tyne, May 8, 1752”; and so the matter
ended.
Amid such hurricanes was Methodism cradled; and in the face of such
opponents Wesley had to pursue his great, gospel mission. Who, after the
specimens of Lavington’s scandalizing pen, is prepared to expect that the
tablet, erected to his memory in Exeter cathedral, should represent him
as one who “never ceased to improve his talents, nor to employ them to
the noblest purposes”? The conclusion of this marvellous epitaph is as
follows:—
“Unaffected sanctity dignified his instructions,

And indulgent candour sweetened his government.
At length, having eminently discharged his duties,
Of a Man, a Christian, and a Prelate,
Prepared, by habitual meditation,
To resign life without regret,
To meet death without terror,
He expired with the praises of God upon his lips,
In his 79th year, September 13, 1762.”[182]
1753.
1753
Age 50 A S usual, Wesley began the new year by preaching, in the
Foundery, at four o’clock in the morning, when a large
congregation met to praise the God of providence and grace with
“joyful hearts and lips.” On the same day, his old friend Howel Harris
wrote him a long letter, from which the following is an extract:—
“January 1, 1753.
“D B J W ,— ... Shall I speak freely to
you, as I am going to that dear Man, who has indeed
honoured you, and whom I believe you wish to honour, for
you live on His bloody sweat and passion? I wish your
ministry and that of the Moravians were united. It would be
for the public good. I have fought a good fight, and have,
through millions of infirmities, kept the faith. You and your
brother Charles have ever been dear to me; but I have often
feared, that your wisdom and popularity would be injurious to
you, and turn you from the true simplicity of the gospel. I
send this, as my dying and loving request, for the Lord’s sake,
for your own sake, and for the sake of thousands that attend
your ministry, that you would direct their eye to the Saviour,
and suffer them not to idolize you. Let nothing fall from your
lip or pen, but what turns the soul from self to the Saviour. To
deny ourselves is a difficult lesson, and there are but few that
learn it. I have written some things, in the time of my
confinement, which I have ordered the bearer to show you,
and which you will perhaps correct and publish, if you have
time, and think they would be of service to the cause of
Christ. Hearty salutation to your brother Charles, and all who
love Jesus Christ in sincerity. I have been laid aside from
public service for some months. I am weary of nothing here
but the body of sin in my flesh. I rejoice in you, and the large
field that is before you. Though I know not how to give over,
I must conclude.
“H H .”[183]
Whitefield spent the year in a glorious itinerancy throughout the
kingdom. On the 1st of March, the first brick of his new Tabernacle was
laid, on the site of his old wooden one, he having collected £1100
towards defraying the expense of its erection. He published several
sermons, and also a small collection of hymns for public worship. “I and
the Messrs. Wesley,” he writes, “are very friendly.” The Wesleys, during
the erection of his Tabernacle, allowed him the use of their London
chapels,—an act of courteous kindness which he gratefully
acknowledges. In a three months’ summer tour, he travelled about twelve
hundred miles, and preached a hundred and eighty times. In Grimshaw’s
church, at Haworth, thirty-five bottles of wine were used at a single
sacrament. The year throughout was a year of triumph and of joy,—with
one exception, which we are bound in honesty to mention.
Moravianism was increasingly a bone of contention. Two years
before, Zinzendorf had purchased, of Sir Hans Sloane, an old family
mansion with adjoining grounds, situated on the banks of the Thames at
Chelsea. The mansion was turned into a congregation house; a chapel
was fitted up; a burial ground was laid out; and gardens, and a terrace,
facing the Thames, were formed. The money expended was more than
£11,000. In April, 1753, the whole establishment of the Unitas Fratrum
removed into the newly acquired premises; and Lindsey House, Chelsea,
was henceforth “the disciple house,”—the head quarters of the English
Moravians. All bishops and elders were subordinate to Zinzendorf, who,
under the name of “papa,” was exclusively the ruler of the church.
Meantime, an enormous debt had been incurred. Parliamentary
negotiations, sending brethren and sisters to the American colonies,
maintaining the preachers of country congregations, sustaining boarding
schools, and meeting the large expenses of Lindsey House,—created
pecuniary liabilities which the Unitas Fratrum found it difficult to meet.
During the year 1749, and the first half of the year 1750, the managers of
the “diaconies” had advanced £13,000, and clamoured for repayment.
Zinzendorf tried to raise a loan of £30,000 for the English Moravians,
from the nobility of Upper Lusatia; but his effort failed. A few of the
London Brethren lent, from their own resources, nearly £15,000, which
merely met present wants. Zinzendorf and others were in danger of arrest
for debt. A crop of lawsuits sprung up. Thomas Hankey was a creditor to
the amount of nearly £19,000; and the Moravian liabilities, ecclesiastical
and trading, were altogether more than £130,000. Affairs appeared to be
involved in inextricable confusion. Bankruptcy was imminent; disgrace
was great. Peter Bohler, at the time, was the minister in London, and did
his utmost to calm the troubled waters. Scandals of all kinds were rife;
and even Bohler himself was not exempt from the general censure,—a
fact which led him, in March, 1753, to refuse to join with the Brethren in
the holy communion, and which probably had something to do with his
leaving London for America in the month of June ensuing.[184]
In the midst of all this, a terrible onslaught was made upon the
Moravians, and upon Zinzendorf in particular, by Henry Rimius, “Aulic
Counsellor to his late majesty the King of Prussia,” in an octavo
pamphlet of 177 pages, dedicated to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and
entitled, “A Candid Narrative of the Rise and Progress of the
Herrnhuthers, commonly called Moravians, or Unitas Fratrum.” In one
place, he charges Zinzendorf with flagrant falsehood. He states, that in
his book, “Natural Reflections,” the count asserts that “he had been
examined by the Theological Faculty at Copenhagen.” Upon inquiry, this
was found to be an absolute untruth, and had been positively
contradicted by a public act of the said faculty, signed with their
corporate seal.
Wesley read Rimius’s narrative as soon as it was published, and wrote:
“It informed me of nothing new. I still think several of the inconsiderable
members of that community are upright; but I fear their governors wax
worse and worse, having their conscience seared as with a hot iron.”
Whitefield, in a letter dated March 21, 1753, observed:—“What is
happening to the Moravians is no more than I have long expected, and
spoken of to many friends. Their scheme is so antichristian in almost
every respect, that I am amazed the eyes of the English Brethren have
not long since been opened.”
Whitefield tried to open them. He published a pamphlet, entitled, “An
Expostulatory Letter, addressed to Nicholas Lewis, Count Zinzendorf,
and Lord Advocate of the Unitas Fratrum.” The letter, dated April 24,
1753, in whole or in part, was reprinted in the magazines and newspapers
of that period, and produced a great sensation.
Zinzendorf and his friends are charged with “misguiding many honest
hearted Christians; with distressing, if not ruining, numerous families;
and with introducing a whole farrago of superstitions, not to say
idolatrous fopperies, into the English nation.” The Unitas Fratrum are
accused of “walking round the graves of their deceased friends on Easter
day, attended with hautboys, trumpets, french horns, and violins.”
Zinzendorf had suffered incense to be “burnt for him, in order to
perfume the room before he made his entrance among the brethren”; and
had allowed a picture to be exhibited in a lovefeast, “representing him
handing a gentleman and lady up to the side of Jesus Christ.” It was
alleged, that the married women were “ordered to wear blue knots; the
single women, pink; those that were just marriageable, pink and white;
widows that were past childbearing, white; and those that were not so,
blue and white.” Hannah Nitschmann, the general eldress of the Fetter
Lane congregation, wore “the episcopal knot,” and might be seen sitting
at the head of a table, surrounded with eldresses and deaconesses,
covered with artificial flowers, and bearing a small altar on which stood
a cross composed of glittering stones, and environed with wax tapers. On
Hannah’s birthday, the floor of one of the rooms in the house of the
single brethren was covered with sand and moss, amid which a star was
made of coloured pebbles. Upon the star was placed a gilded dove,
spouting water from its mouth. The room was curiously decked with
moss and shells; and here Zinzendorf, Hannah Nitschmann, Peter Bohler,
and other labourers sat, in high dignity, beneath an alcove made of
pasteboard. Upon a table was an altar covered with shells, and, on each
side of the altar, a bloody heart emitting flames. The place was
illuminated with wax candles; and musicians were fixed in an adjacent
room, while Zinzendorf and his company performed their devotions, and
regaled themselves with sweetmeats, coffee, tea, and wine.
Zinzendorf is said to be over head and ears in debt; and many of the
English Brethren, by signing bonds for more than they had means to pay,
had exposed themselves to bankruptcy and prison. Peter Bohler, to
comfort one of the creditors, William Bell, had sent for him to his house
in Neville’s Alley, Fetter Lane; where an artificial mountain had been
erected in the hall, which, upon the singing of a particular verse, was
made to fall flat down, and then behind it appeared a representation of
Mr. Bell and the blessed Saviour embracing each other, while the clouds
above were raining money most gloriously. Mr. Freeman and Mr. Grace
had found bills drawn in their names, unknown to them, to the amount of
£48,000; and Mr. Rhodes had been prevailed upon to sell his estate, of
above £400 per annum, to meet the necessities of the Unitas Fratrum;
and, to avoid further payments, for which he had made himself
responsible by signing bonds, had fled to France, leaving behind him a
destitute mother, who since had died.[185]
Such is the substance of Whitefield’s letter. What were its effects?
Wesley writes:—
“July, 1753.—I found the town much alarmed with Mr.
Rimius’s narrative, and Mr. Whitefield’s letter to Count
Zinzendorf. It seems, indeed, that God is hastening to bring to
light those hidden works of darkness. Mr. Whitefield showed
me the letters he had lately received from the count, P. Bohler,
and James Hutton. I was amazed. Either furious anger or
settled contempt breathed in every one of them. Were they
ashamed after all the abominations they had committed? No;
they were not ashamed: they turned the tables upon Mr.
Whitefield. The count blustered, like himself, and roundly
averred, he could say something if he would. James Hutton
said flat, ‘You have more than diabolical impudence; I believe
the devil himself has not so much.’”
Wesley has not recorded the sentiments of his old friend Peter Bohler;
but Whitefield states, that Bohler availed himself of the pulpit to declare,
that his letter “was all a lie.”[186] It so happens, however, that, since then,
the letters of the count, of Bohler, and of Hutton have been published.
Zinzendorf says: “As yet, I owe not a farthing of the £40,000 you are
pleased to tell me of;” and concludes thus: “As your heart is not prepared
to love me, nor your understanding to listen to my reasons” (which he
declines to give) “I wish you well, sir, and am your loving friend,
L .”
Peter Bohler, in his letter of May 4, begins: “Sir, I pity you very much,
that you suffer yourself to be so much imposed upon, and to print your
impositions so inconsiderately. You have now attempted a second time to
ruin my character.” He then denies, that he was the inventor of the
artificial mount, but does not affirm that it was not employed. He
concludes as follows: “Dear Mr. Whitefield, when the secret intentions
of man, together with all his unjust deeds, will be judged, how glad
would you be then, not to have treated our society in general, and, in
particular, that venerable person against whom your letter is chiefly
levelled, and poor I, in so injurious, yea, I may say, impudent and wicked
a manner. P B .”
Hutton’s letter eulogizes the count in the highest terms. “When he
awakes in the morning, he is all sweetness, calmness, tender
harmoniousness with those about him; and, all the day long, he is busied
in doing and contriving the kindest offices for mankind.” He is “usefully
employed constantly eighteen hours in twenty-four, and very frequently
more; and is a man of no expense at all upon his person, so that any one
receiving £50 a year to find him in all necessaries, to his satisfaction,
would certainly be no loser by the bargain.” And yet, “many bulls of
Bashan round about, as brute beasts without understanding, roared madly
against him; and, by daubings and grotesque paintings, described him as
a Mahommed, a Cæsar, an impostor, a Don Quixote, a devil, the beast,
the man of sin, the whore, the antichrist.”
It is right to add, that Thomas Rhodes, whose case Whitefield had
quoted, says, in a letter dated October 21, 1733: “what Mr. Whitefield
has written concerning the United Brethren and me, is, the greatest part,
entire falsities, and the remainder are truths set in a false light.” He
admits, however, the sale of his estate.
Far from pleasant is the task of raking into dunghills such as this; but
history cannot afford to forget unpleasant facts. Whitefield’s letter,
perhaps, was obtrusive, and officious, and, to some extent, incorrect; but
there can be no doubt, that its leading allegations were founded upon
truth.
Happily for himself, Wesley was not an actor in this humbling fracas;
and yet, before the year was ended, he was involved within its meshes. In
October, he spent four days at Bedford, where a Moravian congregation
had been founded in 1744, and where, in 1747, “the chief labourer”
startled some of the Brethren by announcing: “My brethren, we have
received new orders. In London, Yorkshire, and all other places, no
person is to go out of the town without the leave of the chief labourer. So
it must be here. Observe, no one must go out of town, no not a mile,
without leave from me.” In 1750, they built a chapel; squabbles
followed; and Wesley, apparently by request, went, at the time above
stated, to visit them. He writes: “I met the little society, just escaped with
the skin of their teeth. From the account which each of these gave, it
appeared clear to a demonstration—(1) That their elders usurped a more
absolute authority over the conscience, than the Bishop of Rome himself
does. (2) That, to gain and secure this, they used a continued train of
guile, fraud, and falsehood of every kind. (3) That they scrape their
votaries to the bone as to their worldly substance, leaving little to any, to
some nothing, or less than nothing. (4) That still they are so infatuated as
to believe, that theirs is the only true church upon earth.”
But leaving the Moravians, let us track Wesley’s footsteps during the
year 1753.
The first two months were spent in London. He visited “the
Marshalsea prison, a nursery of all manner of wickedness.” “O shame to
man,” he writes, “that there should be such a picture of hell upon earth!
And shame to those who bear the name of Christ, that there should need
any prison at all in Christendom.”
He visited many of the sick and poor, and writes: “Who could see such
scenes unmoved? There are none such in a pagan country. If any of the
Indians in Georgia were sick, those that were near them gave them
whatever they wanted. Oh who will convert the English into honest
heathen? I found some in their cells underground; others in their garrets,
half starved both with cold and hunger; but I found not one of them
unemployed, who was able to crawl about the room. So wickedly,
devilishly false is that common objection, ‘They are poor, only because
they are idle.’ If you saw these things with your own eyes, could you lay
out money in ornaments and superfluities?”
Just at this juncture, Wesley began to turn his attention to a subject,
which afterwards became one of the greatest discoveries of the age.
A year previous to this, Benjamin Franklin had established the
important fact of the identity of lightning and the electric fluid. From
time to time, he had sent accounts of his experiments to the Royal
Society of England; but the communications were not admitted into the
printed transactions of that learned body. They were given, however, to
Mr. Cave, the editor of the Gentleman’s Magazine, who had sense
enough to see their superlative importance, and who published them in a
pamphlet, with a preface written by Dr. Fothergill. By additions
subsequently made, the pamphlet grew into a quarto volume; was
translated into French, German, and Latin; and attracted the attention of
all the philosophers in Europe. The result was, that even the Royal
Society began to reconsider the very experiments which they had treated
with ridicule; and admitted Franklin, in 1753, into their honourable
corporation, bestowing upon him the Copley medal, and all without
solicitation, and without the payment of the customary fees.
With his characteristic keenness, Wesley laid hold of Franklin’s facts
as soon as they were published. They were new and startling; but he saw,
that they were most momentous, and evidently entertained the hope, that
they would be turned to practical account, in a way which would excite
the amazement and gratitude of the human race. Hear what he says:—
“1753, February 17.—From Dr. Franklin’s letters, I
learned,—1. That electrical fire is a species of fire, infinitely
finer than any other yet known. 2. That it is diffused, and in
nearly equal proportions, through almost all substances. 3.
That, as long as it is thus diffused, it has no discernible effect.
4. That, if any quantity of it be collected together, whether by
art or nature, it then becomes visible in the form of fire, and
inexpressibly powerful. 5. That it is essentially different from
the light of the sun; for it pervades a thousand bodies which
light cannot penetrate, and yet cannot penetrate glass, which
light pervades so freely. 6. That lightning is no other than
electrical fire, collected by one or more clouds. 7. That all the
effects of lightning may be performed by the artificial electric
fire. 8. That anything pointed, as a spire or tree, attracts the
lightning, just as a needle does the electrical fire. 9. That the
electrical fire, discharged on a rat or fowl, will kill it instantly;
but discharged on one dipped in water, it will slide off, and do
it no hurt at all. In like manner, the lightning, which will kill a
man in a moment, will not hurt him, if he be thoroughly wet.
What an amazing scene is here opened, for after ages to
improve upon!”
Wesley’s concluding sentence is remarkable; but even he had no idea
that, in little more than a hundred years, electric fire would become the
means of sending, almost instantaneously, its wondrous messages from
England to India, and from shore to shore of the great Atlantic Ocean.
Wesley, however, was one of the first to take an interest in the science of
electricity. Six years before this, in 1747, he wrote: “I went to see what
are called the electrical experiments. How must these also confound
those poor half thinkers, who will believe nothing but what they can
comprehend! Who can comprehend how fire lives in water, and passes
through it more freely than through the air? How flame issues out of my
finger,—real flame, such as sets fire to spirits of wine? How these, and
many more as strange phenomena, arise from the turning round of a
glass globe? It is all mystery; if haply, by any means, God may hide
pride from man!” In 1756, he began to turn the discovery to practical
account. Having procured an apparatus, he commenced electrifying
persons for various disorders, and soon found his patients so numerous,
that an hour every day had to be devoted to trying “the virtue of this
surprising medicine.” Moorfields, Southwark, St. Paul’s, and the Seven
Dials were the places of rendezvous; and here thousands resorted to avail
themselves of Wesley’s remedy. He writes: “Hundreds, perhaps
thousands, have received unspeakable good; and I have not known one
man, woman, or child, who has received any hurt thereby; so that, when
I hear any talk of the danger of being electrified (especially if they are
medical men who talk so), I cannot but impute it to great want either of
sense or honesty.” “We know it is a thousand medicines in one; in
particular, that it is the most efficacious medicine in nervous disorders of
every kind, which has ever yet been discovered.”
On February 26, Wesley left London for Bristol, reading on the road
Mr. Prince’s “Christian History,” concerning which he makes the
following remarks:—
“What an amazing difference is there in the manner
wherein God has carried on His work in England and in
America! There, above a hundred of the established clergy,
men of age and experience, and of the greatest note for sense
and learning in those parts, are zealously engaged in the work.
Here, almost the whole body of the aged, experienced,
learned clergy, are zealously engaged against it; and few, but a
handful of raw young men, engaged in it, without name,
learning, or eminent sense. And yet, by that large number of
honourable men, the work seldom flourished above six
months at a time, and then followed a lamentable and general
decay, before the next revival of it; whereas, that which God
hath wrought, by these despised instruments, has continually
increased for fifteen years together; and, at whatever time it
has declined in any one place, has more eminently flourished
in others.”
In the same month, Wesley wrote concerning these “raw young men,”
as follows:—
“L , February 6, 1753.
“M B ,—It is a constant rule with us, that no
preacher should preach above twice a day, unless on Sunday
or some extraordinary time; and then he may preach three
times. We know nature cannot long bear the preaching oftener
than this, and, therefore, to do it is a degree of self murder.
Those of the preachers, who would not follow this advice,
have all repented when it was too late.
“I likewise advise all our preachers not to preach above an
hour at a time, prayer and all; and not to speak louder than the
number of hearers require.
“You will show this to all our preachers, and any that desire
it may take a copy of it.
“I am your affectionate brother,
“J W .”[187]
Such was Wesley’s advice; his example, however, was often widely
different.
On March 19, Wesley and his wife set out from Bristol for the north of
England.
At Evesham, he preached in the town hall, where most of the
congregation were still and attentive, excepting some at the lower end,
who, he says, “were walking to and fro, laughing and talking, as if they
had been in Westminster Abbey.”
At Birmingham, he talked with Sarah B——, one of six wild
enthusiasts, who had disturbed the society, and, by their antinomian
blasphemy, shown themselves fit for Bedlam.
At Nantwich, he was “saluted with curses and hard names;” and soon
afterwards, the mob pulled down the chapel.[188]
At Davyhulme, he found, what he had never heard of in England, a
clan of infidel peasants. He writes: “a neighbouring alehouse keeper
drinks, and laughs, and argues into deism all the ploughmen and
dairymen he can light on. But no mob rises against him; and reason
good: Satan is not divided against himself.”
In the Manchester society, he found seventeen dragoons, who had
been in the same regiment with John Haime in Flanders; but they utterly
despised both John and his Master till they came to Manchester, where
they were “now a pattern of seriousness, zeal, and all holy conversation.”
At Chipping, when he was about to go into the pulpit of his friend, the
Rev. Mr. Milner, a man thrust himself before him, and said, “You shall
not go into the pulpit;” and by main strength pushed him back. Eight or

Corporate Financial Accounting 15th Edition Warren Test Bank

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corporate Financial Accounting 15th Edition Warren Test Bank

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corporate Financial Accounting 15th

Edition Warren Test Bank

Chapter 02 - Double-Entry Accounting

2. A chart of accounts is a listing of accounts that make up the journal.

3. The chart of accounts should be the same for each business.

Visit TestBankDeal.com to get complete for all chapters

6. Prepaid expenses are an example of an expense.

7. The Unearned Revenues account is an example of a liability.

8. The Dividends account is an expense.

“These things being so, what must all unprejudiced men

“You regard neither mercy, justice, nor truth. To vilify and

What was the result? In the month of March, or April,[181] Lavington

This was pitiful poltroonery, in perfect character with a cowardly

“Unaffected sanctity dignified his instructions,

You might also like